RISKY CHOICE IN PIGEONS AND HUMANS: A CROSS-SPECIES COMPARISON
RISKY CHOICE IN PIGEONS AND HUMANS: A CROSS-SPECIES COMPARISON
复制标题
DOI：
10.1901/jeab.2010.93-27
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Hackenberg, Timothy D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lagorio, Carla H.;Hackenberg, Timothy D.
鸽子和人类受试者在变量和调整延迟之间进行重复选择，以根据受试者最近的选择模式滴定标记强化。无差异曲线是在两种不同的程序下生成的：立即交换，其中每次试验期间获得的代币立即交换以获取终端强化物（鸽子的食物，人类的视频剪辑），以及延迟交换，其中代币累积并在 11 次试验后进行交换。前者被设计为通常用于非人类受试者的程序的模拟，后者被设计为通常用于人类参与者的程序的模拟。在这两种手术类型下，不同的可变延迟计划在不同条件下被系统地操纵，从而改变了风险选项的强化即时性。在即时交换条件下，人类和鸽子都一致倾向于可变延迟，并且无差异点通常根据相对强化即时性进行排序。这种风险敏感性在延迟交换条件下大大降低。选择和试验启动反应延迟随无差异点直接变化，这表明局部分析可以提供有用的强化物价值的辅助测量。总体而言，结果表明，修改程序特征可以使鸽子和人类的选择更加一致，并且文献中报道的人类与非人类在风险选择程序上的差异可能至少部分是程序差异的产物。
Pigeon and human subjects were given repeated choices between variable and adjusting delays to token reinforcement that titrated in relation to a subject's recent choice patterns. Indifference curves were generated under two different procedures: immediate exchange, in which a token earned during each trial was exchanged immediately for access to the terminal reinforcer (food for pigeons, video clips for humans), and delayed exchange, in which tokens accumulated and were exchanged after 11 trials. The former was designed as an analogue of procedures typically used with nonhuman subjects, the latter as an analogue to procedures typically used with human participants. Under both procedure types, different variable-delay schedules were manipulated systematically across conditions in ways that altered the reinforcer immediacy of the risky option. Under immediate-exchange conditions, both humans and pigeons consistently preferred the variable delay, and indifference points were generally ordered in relation to relative reinforcer immediacies. Such risk sensitivity was greatly reduced under delayed-exchange conditions. Choice and trial-initiation response latencies varied directly with indifference points, suggesting that local analyses may provide useful ancillary measures of reinforcer value. On the whole, the results indicate that modifying procedural features brings choices of Pigeons and humans into better accord, and that human-nonhuman differences on risky choice procedures reported in the literature may be at least partly a product of procedural differences.